Armor Proficiency, alternative rules?

[EnnPeeCee]

5e's rules for armor proficiency:

Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
Aka, if you wear armor that you are not proficient in, you will suck.

I particularly dislike the exclusionary design that (most) games use by pre-defining which types of equipment each type of character can use/wear. While I agree that most fighters should wield a sword and wear armor, and most wizards shouldn't; I dislike that the rules have basically decided that wizards can't. I would love to see a system that provides some tradeoff between the heaviness of their armor, and some detriment to the character, so that the player has the ability to choose what is right for their character.

For example, I liked the intent of the rules from 3.5e on spell failure, but the execution was very poor. For reference, in 3.5, the heavier the armor, the higher % chance arcane spells would fail to be cast. The idea being that there is a decision the player needs to make between valuing higher defense vs reliability of their spells. But ultimately in 3.5, the decision was almost always 0%, because spells were too valuable to risk having any chance of failure.

Extra thought on the inconsistency of armor proficiency within the 5e rules:
Proficiency in a saving throw means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a skill means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a weapon means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a tool means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in an armor means you're allowed to wear it. <-- The only one different from the rest?


My initial thought is to completely eliminate the concept of 'armor proficiency', let any type of character wear any type of armor. BUT, instead introduce something that creates a tradeoff between heavier armors, and the character's abilities.
Before I dig in too far, I was curious if anyone else has used alternative rules for armor proficiencies, or are aware of other game systems that do something similar to what I'm after.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks.

[chiefwaha]

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to fix here? I think this works perfectly well...

Having proficiency in armor eliminates disadvantage for a huge number of abilities and allows you to cast spells. Seems to better than getting your proficiency bonus in whatever skill or ability you have.

[Kane0]

Heavier armor limits the amount of dex that applies to AC, requires a minimum Str and imposes a penalty to stealth in exchange for that better AC. You could expand on that by using the str requirements in place of proficiency and also applying the maximum dex applicable to ability checks and/or saving throws

[Burley]

The easiest fix for your table would be to reduce the AC of all armors by 3. If you're wearing armor with which you're proficient, you can add your proficiency bonus to AC. Now it conforms to all other proficiency rules. (Leave existing penalties to using armor you're not proficient with, though, or you'll have rogues in plate.)

[EnnPeeCee]

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to fix here? I think this works perfectly well...

Having proficiency in armor eliminates disadvantage for a huge number of abilities and allows you to cast spells. Seems to better than getting your proficiency bonus in whatever skill or ability you have.

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to. Have a concept for a Monk character who wears armor? Can't. Why? WotC decided Monks don't wear armor.

It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class. I disagree with that, so I'm seeing if there are good alternatives that allow for more flexibility.

[MoiMagnus]

Extra thought on the inconsistency of armor proficiency within the 5e rules:
Proficiency in a saving throw means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a skill means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a weapon means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in a tool means add your proficiency on those rolls.
Proficiency in an armor means you're allowed to wear it. <-- The only one different from the rest?

If your goal is to harmonise all of that, then you can make the armour become purely aesthetic (like cloths), and +N armour no longer exists (other magical armours still exists, but the +N are already accounted for in the following formula):

Default AC: 10+MDex
Light armour proficiency => 10+MDex+Prof
Medium armour proficiency => 12+MDex(max 2)+Prof
Heavy armour proficiency => 12+MFor(max 2)+Prof



My initial thought is to completely eliminate the concept of 'armor proficiency', let any type of character wear any type of armor. BUT, instead introduce something that creates a tradeoff between heavier armors, and the character's abilities.

Like for example, peoples who don't train themself to wear heavier armour have additional feats/ASI making them a little stronger? The armour proficiency feats are not perfect, and maybe they would need to be reworked, but the tradeoff already exists.
Or maybe the problem is that you mostly play lower level so peoples can't afford feats to take them? (maybe a free feat to everyone would help?) Or are too multiclassing-happy to consider taking a feat for that? (I agree that it's often better to multiclass than to take those feats, which is IMO a problem)

[Kane0]

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to. Have a concept for a Monk character who wears armor? Can't. Why? WotC decided Monks don't wear armor.

It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class. I disagree with that, so I'm seeing if there are good alternatives that allow for more flexibility.

Or just remove those armor restrictions (barbarian, monk and druid come to mind). There are plenty of ways to pick up proficiency but you could even rule it as a valid downtime training option.

[EnnPeeCee]

Heavier armor limits the amount of dex that applies to AC, requires a minimum Str and imposes a penalty to stealth in exchange for that better AC. You could expand on that by using the str requirements in place of proficiency and also applying the maximum dex applicable to ability checks and/or saving throws
I did consider something like this, but I worry about it being more punishing for martial characters who want to use those skills and used to wear heavier armors without issue, and less punishing for casters who don't care about those skills as much.


Or just remove those armor restrictions (barbarian, monk and druid come to mind). There are plenty of ways to pick up proficiency but you could even rule it as a valid downtime training option.
I would want to remove those arbitrary armor restrictions if I follow through with any of these ideas. That's a good reminder.
Not to be argumentative, but I wouldn't call 2 ways 'plenty' (multiclass and feat). Short of your suggestion to allow downtime training, am I missing any ways for a character to pick up proficiency during a campaign?

[Anymage]

Training in new abilities in general is tacked on in 5e. The baseline design gives class features and not much else as you level. Having new abilities mostly tied to multiclassing and feats makes sense because that's mostly where they'd put them.

The other problem is that spells in D&D in general are all their own separate rule element that's guaranteed to work unless something else explicitly stops them. You could strip the blurb in monks and barbarians about their relevant class features not working if wearing the wrong sorts of armors, and then ask if the result is too strong given access to armors through multiclass or race. You could give your average warlock heavy armor, and since they're EB based they'd have no more drawback than anyone else who was primarily attack roll based. Wizards and sorcerers, you'd have to create a whole new system tying spells into attack rolls and/or skills checks, which would be a fairly appreciably departure from what D&D is to a lot of people.

[Kane0]

Short of your suggestion to allow downtime training, am I missing any ways for a character to pick up proficiency during a campaign?

Race/subrace
Class/subclass
Background (with DM approval)
Feat
Downtime Training (with DM approval)
Magic items
Epic Boons/Dark Gift/DM benny
Edit: oh spells too

[EnnPeeCee]

If your goal is to harmonise all of that, then you can make the armour become purely aesthetic (like cloths), and +N armour no longer exists (other magical armours still exists, but the +N are already accounted for in the following formula):

Default AC: 10+MDex
Light armour proficiency => 10+MDex+Prof
Medium armour proficiency => 12+MDex(max 2)+Prof
Heavy armour proficiency => 12+MFor(max 2)+Prof
This is something I was considering, but wasn't my main goal with my post. My main interest is to de-couple a character's class from the type of equipment they are allowed to use, without completely throwing game balance out the window.



Like for example, peoples who don't train themself to wear heavier armour have additional feats/ASI making them a little stronger? The armour proficiency feats are not perfect, and maybe they would need to be reworked, but the tradeoff already exists.
Or maybe the problem is that you mostly play lower level so peoples can't afford feats to take them? (maybe a free feat to everyone would help?) Or are too multiclassing-happy to consider taking a feat for that? (I agree that it's often better to multiclass than to take those feats, which is IMO a problem)
That's an interesting approach that I hadn't considered. Rather than heavy armors imposing some detriment; have lighter armors provide some type of boon.
But yes, at least at the tables I play at, feats tend to be pretty rare beyond my own character sheet. And yes I agree, the armor proficiency feats are not the greatest as currently written.

[Rav]

Before I dig in too far, I was curious if anyone else has used alternative rules for armor proficiencies, or are aware of other game systems that do something similar to what I'm after.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks.

Just makes the disadvantage only apply to strength and dex based rolls. But allow the ability to cast spells as long as they don't have a somatic component. This would allow certain non-proficient characters to maybe wanna do it despite the penalties. I could see the use-case for some builds choosing to wear medium or heavy armor even if it give them these penalties as long as they could still cast some spells.

Still too harsh for your taste? Just knock the penalties down to only str/dex ability checks. Let attacks and save be normal or whatever. Or allow all spellcasting.

The 'fix' here is as simple as relaxing the penalties until it 'might' make sense for someone to do it. Since, that seems to be what you're after.

[Snails]

The easiest fix for your table would be to reduce the AC of all armors by 3. If you're wearing armor with which you're proficient, you can add your proficiency bonus to AC. Now it conforms to all other proficiency rules. (Leave existing penalties to using armor you're not proficient with, though, or you'll have rogues in plate.)

Reasonable. But Rogues in plate will be rare, because plate nullifies both positive and negative Dex mods for AC. In the case of a Str Rogue, I would consider that legit enough to allow.

[Witty Username]

Eh, multiclassing solves this. Subclasses can account for this. You may be better served by making subclasses with different armor assumptions. Especially since you can adjust the balance point as needed for things like wizard which are balanced around not having armor access.

[kazaryu]

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to. Have a concept for a Monk character who wears armor? Can't. Why? WotC decided Monks don't wear armor.

It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class. I disagree with that, so I'm seeing if there are good alternatives that allow for more flexibility.

so, first of al..no it doesn't. you're not rpevented from gaining armor proficiency, the game just doesn't give you that armor proficiency. so you have to trade something for it. which is how class based rpg's work. most martials don't have access to magic on the scale that wizards do, but they get things like extra attack and free armor to compensate...
I just...i don't see what the problem is unless you're running a no multiclass/no feat game...but if thats the case then your build options are already FAR more restricted than what armor proficiencies do..



as for systems: i mean in general it sounds like you would prefer skill based/ala-carte style systems. where you pick individual abilities rather than a wholesale class. GURPS is an example of that, call of cthulu is another (although CoC is an entirely different genre and so isn't really comparable to DnD).

[EnnPeeCee]

Just makes the disadvantage only apply to strength and dex based rolls. But allow the ability to cast spells as long as they don't have a somatic component. This would allow certain non-proficient characters to maybe wanna do it despite the penalties. I could see the use-case for some builds choosing to wear medium or heavy armor even if it give them these penalties as long as they could still cast some spells.

Still too harsh for your taste? Just knock the penalties down to only str/dex ability checks. Let attacks and save be normal or whatever. Or allow all spellcasting.

The 'fix' here is as simple as relaxing the penalties until it 'might' make sense for someone to do it. Since, that seems to be what you're after.

That's a good idea. Take the inability to cast spells and penalties and refine it down to something more palatable. Opens up options without any significant changes.

[Devils_Advocate]

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to.
WotC didn't create D&D. The Wizard and Monk classes were designed by others. Not wearing armor was well established as part of their respective shticks by the time that WotC got them. Like, especially the one that has unarmed, unarmored combat as a core part of its conceptual makeup? That's part of what makes Monk different from Fighter. And they're supposed to be different from each other.


It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class.
That's what character classes are for, if not in general then certainly in Dungeons & Dragons. The PHB says "Class is the primary definition of what your character can do". And that means restricting possibilities, because otherwise you ain't defining jack. The classes are largely predefined collections of abilities by design. Add much more customization and they not only lose their distinctive identities but stop looking like D&D classes at all.

With all due respect, responding to a writing prompt with "Why are you trying to restrict my creativity?" is rather missing the point. And specifically criticizing a few of a dozen writing prompts for telling you what to do, as if the rest aren't also doing that, mostly serves to illustrate your own biases.

I agree with kazaryu that you might be better served by a different system. But my main point is that D&D's D&Disms aren't design blunders, because they're in service of D&D's main job of being D&D. Bear in mind that the previous edition did poorly largely due to being D&D to an unsatisfactory degree. 5E's D&D-being in its various forms isn't a mistake.

[EggKookoo]

With all due respect, responding to a writing prompt with "Why are you trying to restrict my creativity?" is rather missing the point. And specifically criticizing a few of a dozen writing prompts for telling you what to do, as if the rest aren't also doing that, mostly serves to illustrate your own biases.

I've never understood the argument that creativity means "no restrictions." Creativity, as I see it, is working within constraints to get something interesting and (arguably) unique. It takes more creativity to "do X and Y without resorting to a crutch like Z" than "just use X, Y, and Z as you see fit."

Maybe I'm just old and grouchy. :smallsmile:

[The_Jette]

Have you considered trying out the Armor System from the Wheel of Time Core Rules? They had an AC bonus that was tied to your character level, and varied based on your class. So, when you were wearing armor, you would either gain the armor bonus of the armor you were wearing, or the armor bonus from your class (plus your dex bonus, obviously), whichever was higher. It would probably take some tweaking, since 5e has the whole max dex bonus in medium and none in heavy, situation. But, I could still see it working out pretty well, if you put a little work into it. It would make it so that armor was useful early game, but you wouldn't have to stop wearing your favorite armor just because you found better armor somewhere else.

Just a thought.

[EnnPeeCee]

After sleeping on it for a couple of nights, here is rough conceptual idea:

Remove armor proficiency.

Add stat to all armors:
Hinderance: Armor and shields restrict the movement of your character, heavier armors are more restrictive.
Light armor, hinderance = 1
Medium armor, hinderance = 2
Heavy armor, hinderance = 3
Shield, hinderance = +1

Your character is hindered according to the following (cumulative):
1: Disadvantage on stealth
2: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX skill checks (including initiative) and saves
3: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX based attacks, unable to cast spells with somatic components
4: Speed halved

Classes that currently have any armor proficiency instead get:
Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by 1.

Classes that currently have heavy armor proficiency instead get:
Improved Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by an additional 1 (stacks with armor familiarity).

Classes that currently have shield proficiency instead get:
Shield Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by a shield you wield by 1.

[The_Jette]

After sleeping on it for a couple of nights, here is rough conceptual idea:

Remove armor proficiency.

Add stat to all armors:
Hinderance: Armor and shields restrict the movement of your character, heavier armors are more restrictive.
Light armor, hinderance = 1
Medium armor, hinderance = 2
Heavy armor, hinderance = 3
Shield, hinderance = +1

Your character is hindered according to the following (cumulative):
1: Disadvantage on stealth
2: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX skill checks (including initiative) and saves
3: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX based attacks, unable to cast spells with somatic components
4: Speed halved

Classes that currently have any armor proficiency instead get:
Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by 1.

Classes that currently have heavy armor proficiency instead get:
Improved Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by an additional 1 (stacks with armor familiarity).

Classes that currently have shield proficiency instead get:
Shield Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by a shield you wield by 1.

Are you going to make Mithral Armor reduce the hinderance by an additional 1? Or have some other effect?

[Keltest]

After sleeping on it for a couple of nights, here is rough conceptual idea:

Remove armor proficiency.

Add stat to all armors:
Hinderance: Armor and shields restrict the movement of your character, heavier armors are more restrictive.
Light armor, hinderance = 1
Medium armor, hinderance = 2
Heavy armor, hinderance = 3
Shield, hinderance = +1

Your character is hindered according to the following (cumulative):
1: Disadvantage on stealth
2: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX skill checks (including initiative) and saves
3: Disadvantage on all STR and DEX based attacks, unable to cast spells with somatic components
4: Speed halved

Classes that currently have any armor proficiency instead get:
Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by 1.

Classes that currently have heavy armor proficiency instead get:
Improved Armor Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by armor you wear by an additional 1 (stacks with armor familiarity).

Classes that currently have shield proficiency instead get:
Shield Familiarity: Reduce the hinderance imposed by a shield you wield by 1.

Im not really sure how thats meaningfully different? You still wont get wizards or especially rogues to wear heavy armor or use shields most of the time, because they still just have so many negative penalties attached to it that the class is basically rendered nonfunctional, which is the same reason they dont do so without proficiency now.

[EnnPeeCee]

Are you going to make Mithral Armor reduce the hinderance by an additional 1? Or have some other effect?

It could! It makes sense that special armors could have reduced hinderance as a benefit. Or even some that have increased hinderance in trade for something else.
I haven't gotten far enough into the idea to look at the consequences of it though.

[The_Jette]

It could! It makes sense that special armors could have reduced hinderance as a benefit. Or even some that have increased hinderance in trade for something else.
I haven't gotten far enough into the idea to look at the consequences of it though.

This is going to get a lot more difficult if someone decides to play an Armorer Artificer. But, until then, you won't really have to figure that stuff out.

[EnnPeeCee]

Im not really sure how thats meaningfully different? You still wont get wizards or especially rogues to wear heavy armor or use shields most of the time, because they still just have so many negative penalties attached to it that the class is basically rendered nonfunctional, which is the same reason they dont do so without proficiency now.

The point I'm trying to get to is remove the binary yes/no proficiency, and replace with a gradual scale that lets players find a balance point.

You are correct that most wizards won't wear heavy armor with this, that was the intent, as I stated in the OP most probably shouldn't. But with RAW, a wizard gets the same consequence whether its light armor, heavy, shields; all of them turn off the ability to play your character. So there is no choice with RAW.

With this the wizard can choose:
Should I give up stealth for a little extra defense?
Should I give up more skills for more defense?
Can I get by using no somatic components and go for heavy armor?

And maybe the balance point isn't there yet with what I proposed. I wrote it in 15 minutes, I certainly haven't playtested it. Just for concept at the moment.
I'm sure this won't be for everyone, it does add complexity to a simple game.

[Keltest]

The point I'm trying to get to is remove the binary yes/no proficiency, and replace with a gradual scale that lets players find a balance point.

You are correct that most wizards won't wear heavy armor with this, that was the intent, as I stated in the OP most probably shouldn't. But with RAW, a wizard gets the same consequence whether its light armor, heavy, shields; all of them turn off the ability to play your character. So there is no choice with RAW.

With this the wizard can choose:
Should I give up stealth for a little extra defense?
Should I give up more skills for more defense?
Can I get by using no somatic components and go for heavy armor?

And maybe the balance point isn't there yet with what I proposed. I wrote it in 15 minutes, I certainly haven't playtested it. Just for concept at the moment.
I'm sure this won't be for everyone, it does add complexity to a simple game.

Thats fair, but i think youve neglected to account for the alternatives that wizards in particular have to wearing armor, namely Bracers of Defense and their spells like Mage Armor (go figure). Thats what your new options are competing with.

[Kane0]

Or pull a Skyrim and cut out medium armor entirely

[chiefwaha]

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to. Have a concept for a Monk character who wears armor? Can't. Why? WotC decided Monks don't wear armor.

It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class. I disagree with that, so I'm seeing if there are good alternatives that allow for more flexibility.

But a monk can wear armor. Start one level of fighter and all of a sudden you have proficiency in all armors... You lose access to a few abilities(martial arts, unarmored defense and unarmored movement come to mind), but that's the choice you made when you wear armor... I can make a reasonably powered STR monk this way even. Same thing with wizards... Nothing prevents you from casting in armor other than needing proficiency...

It only makes sense that if you have proficiency in armor something else is going to be lacking somewhere else... There's got to be trade offs. A 20th level wizard that focuses completely on casting should be better at casting than a 20th level wizard that also learned how to cast in armor...

Now if you're running a no feats/no multiclassing game, that's a different story, but it's also almost a completely different game at that point. But even then, I can make a mountain dwarf wizard wearing half plate and there are a ton of subclasses that can fit most concepts without too much trouble.

[Rav]

But a monk can wear armor. Start one level of fighter and all of a sudden you have proficiency in all armors... You lose access to a few abilities(martial arts, unarmored defense and unarmored movement come to mind), but that's the choice you made when you wear armor... I can make a reasonably powered STR monk this way even. Same thing with wizards... Nothing prevents you from casting in armor other than needing proficiency...

You'd wear armor as a Monk and lose: Basically all your core Monk abilities. So, why be monk? Even if you get a couple levels and have some Ki and use flurry of blows, you're making 2 unarmed attacks but without the benefit of martial arts so that's just 1+ str mod damage. How is this character supposed to be effective when all your class abilities are shut off like that, and why not just pick any other class instead if you're planning on wearing armor because anything you pick will at least do something.

Wizard can get around this issue for sure, you're right, by trading a level for a dip into fighter (or even better a dip into cleric, forge/life/nature/order/war/twilight all give heavy proficiency even if they're not 1st level class choice, bonus: you don't give up your spellslot progression this way, imo)

But monk has no exceptions for being proficient. Their abilities get shutdown whether they can wear the armor skillfully or not.

[Amechra]

Yeah, there's a difference between the fact that Monks can wear armor and whether or not that's a good idea. Bear in mind that Monk 1 is an entirely dead level if you wear armor, and that you're also losing half of the benefits of Monk 2. At that point, I question why you're going Monk — the ability to Dodge as a bonus action a few times per short rest? Eventually reaching Stunning Strike?

[chiefwaha]

You'd wear armor as a Monk and lose: Basically all your core Monk abilities. So, why be monk? Even if you get a couple levels and have some Ki and use flurry of blows, you're making 2 unarmed attacks but without the benefit of martial arts so that's just 1+ str mod damage. How is this character supposed to be effective when all your class abilities are shut off like that, and why not just pick any other class instead if you're planning on wearing armor because anything you pick will at least do something.

Wizard can get around this issue for sure, you're right, by trading a level for a dip into fighter (or even better a dip into cleric, forge/life/nature/order/war/twilight all give heavy proficiency even if they're not 1st level class choice, bonus: you don't give up your spellslot progression this way, imo)

But monk has no exceptions for being proficient. Their abilities get shutdown whether they can wear the armor skillfully or not.

I argue, why be a monk if you want to wear armor? Unarmed and unarmored is their entire schtick.

But, yeah, I was building with Tasha's, so taking the Unarmed Fighting Style would be required. Less effectively, Tavern Brawler would increase your die as well. Also, there are other options for Ki usage than Flurry of Blows. And your main attack would certainly be something that is more effective than the monk's unarmed attack for a majority of the game. A monk in magic full plate wielding a magic greatsword dodging with a bonus action doesn't sound terrible.

Again, I'm not saying this would be optimal, just that it's certainly possible. EDIT: And you're talking about the game limiting creativity, not power options. And I argue the game has an absolute plethora of options already baked into the game to fit almost any idea.

[JonBeowulf]

It works perfectly well keeping characters that WotC decided shouldn't wear armor from being able to. Have a concept for a Monk character who wears armor? Can't. Why? WotC decided Monks don't wear armor.

It restricts creativity in order to maintain an iconic theme of each class. I disagree with that, so I'm seeing if there are good alternatives that allow for more flexibility.

Why are you pinning this on WotC? This stuff goes all the way back to Gygax in the late '70s.

And who says you can't do it? There are feats that grant armor proficiency... you can grab it if you want it. It's up to you. Make a choice and deal with the costs.

Fighters and Rogues have spellcasting subclasses that keep the armor proficiencies of the base class. Grab one of those.

An armored Monk is your example? Monks have a feature that compensates for the lack of armor proficiency (similar to Barbarians). All the math of wearing armor without having to carry it around. Giving Monks armor without cost either breaks the class by leaving in the compensating feature or weakens the class by making the compensating feature irrelevant (or removing it).

Instead of trying to change the framework to fit a concept, try to build the concept within the framework.

Or go find another framework. There are dozens out there.